39 ms·

You don't need an ID of any sort to conceal carry a gun in AZ, but you need one for an app?

ranger_danger 9mo ago
Only if the bill is voted on, approved and signed into law, which I would bet top dollar will never happen.
paxys 9mo ago
The 2nd amendment is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right these days. And that too only if you have the correct political views.
- malfist 9mo ago
  See Pretti
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - wasabi991011 9mo ago
      He was right to be acquitted, the cops were doing drive by shootings from unmarked vans (using non-lethal bullets but hard to tell when being shot at in the night).
      - pluralmonad 9mo ago
        There is no such thing as "non-lethal" bullets. A bean bag round can kill you. The riot control paraphernalia is less-lethal than traditional firearms.
      - mothballed 9mo ago
        He was acquitted in Minnesota under a very similar fact-pattern of what was happening in Minneapolis during the ICE fiasco: masked men in unmarked cars, often using unlawful force, essentially undifferentiated from thugs, going off and shooting people like goode. That is what I'm trying to get people to understand.
    - anonymous908213 9mo ago
      > when a guy with an AK lit up on cops during the BLM riots. It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van". Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told investigators, as well as the tales police and prosecutors offered up to the media. Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! Fuck ’em up, gas ’em, fuck ’em up.” At 17th Avenue and Lake Street, around 10 p.m., the SWAT team saw a group of people outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station. Bittell told the driver to head toward the station and said, “Let ’em have it boys!” They later learned they were shooting at the gas station owner, neighbors and relatives guarding the station from more looting, as well as bystanders, including a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was yelling, “Press!” About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot. They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. [...] Stallings, an Army veteran, returned fire with his mini Draco pistol, for which he had a permit. Actually, rather than framing, I would say that you are outright lying, to be honest. --- > Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that. This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
- uncletscollie 9mo ago
  [dead]
thinkingtoilet 9mo ago
Can children buy guns in AZ? Look, I don't have an opinion here one way or the other, this almost certainly won't pass, but please at least try to argue in good faith.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  Adults can buy a gun with no ID, no problem in AZ, fully legal. If you prefer that comparison, to an adult being carded to buy an app. I do feel I was making a good faith comment here. --------- re: below due to throttling --------------- >Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps. -------------------------------------- >Is it legal to sell a gun to a child in Arizona? Or do you responsible for age verification? You continue to argue in bad faith. It is legal to sell a gun to an adult in AZ without carding them and without doing "age verification" as described in the article. In comparison, this bill appears to make it illegal to sell an app to an adult without doing "age verification" as they've described. My comparison here is in good faith. ------------------------------------ >How do they pass the federal background check? Easy, meet in parking lot, pay cash, buy gun, no background check needed and fully legal.
  - 15155 9mo ago
    Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Yes private sales have no background check, obviously I was referring to the "correct" case since that is part of "all" sales and the headline here is "all" apps. Why would I be referring to the incorrect case? If you want to force a condition in which I'm wrong, in bad faith, then I can play that fuck fuck game with you too. I can walk into a "regulated" store and buy a perfectly functional and accurate 1889 Schmidt–Rubin bolt action cartridge rifle with absolutely no background check no ID -- so *ha ha ha you are incorrect!*.

Only if the bill is voted on, approved and signed into law, which I would bet top dollar will never happen.

paxys 9mo ago

The 2nd amendment is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right these days. And that too only if you have the correct political views.

malfist 9mo ago
See Pretti
- mothballed 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - wasabi991011 9mo ago
    He was right to be acquitted, the cops were doing drive by shootings from unmarked vans (using non-lethal bullets but hard to tell when being shot at in the night).
    - pluralmonad 9mo ago
      There is no such thing as "non-lethal" bullets. A bean bag round can kill you. The riot control paraphernalia is less-lethal than traditional firearms.
    - mothballed 9mo ago
      He was acquitted in Minnesota under a very similar fact-pattern of what was happening in Minneapolis during the ICE fiasco: masked men in unmarked cars, often using unlawful force, essentially undifferentiated from thugs, going off and shooting people like goode. That is what I'm trying to get people to understand.
  - anonymous908213 9mo ago
    > when a guy with an AK lit up on cops during the BLM riots. It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van". Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told investigators, as well as the tales police and prosecutors offered up to the media. Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! Fuck ’em up, gas ’em, fuck ’em up.” At 17th Avenue and Lake Street, around 10 p.m., the SWAT team saw a group of people outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station. Bittell told the driver to head toward the station and said, “Let ’em have it boys!” They later learned they were shooting at the gas station owner, neighbors and relatives guarding the station from more looting, as well as bystanders, including a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was yelling, “Press!” About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot. They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. [...] Stallings, an Army veteran, returned fire with his mini Draco pistol, for which he had a permit. Actually, rather than framing, I would say that you are outright lying, to be honest. --- > Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that. This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
uncletscollie 9mo ago
[dead]

thinkingtoilet 9mo ago

Can children buy guns in AZ? Look, I don't have an opinion here one way or the other, this almost certainly won't pass, but please at least try to argue in good faith.

mothballed 9mo ago
Adults can buy a gun with no ID, no problem in AZ, fully legal. If you prefer that comparison, to an adult being carded to buy an app. I do feel I was making a good faith comment here. --------- re: below due to throttling --------------- >Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps. -------------------------------------- >Is it legal to sell a gun to a child in Arizona? Or do you responsible for age verification? You continue to argue in bad faith. It is legal to sell a gun to an adult in AZ without carding them and without doing "age verification" as described in the article. In comparison, this bill appears to make it illegal to sell an app to an adult without doing "age verification" as they've described. My comparison here is in good faith. ------------------------------------ >How do they pass the federal background check? Easy, meet in parking lot, pay cash, buy gun, no background check needed and fully legal.
- 15155 9mo ago
  Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Yes private sales have no background check, obviously I was referring to the "correct" case since that is part of "all" sales and the headline here is "all" apps. Why would I be referring to the incorrect case? If you want to force a condition in which I'm wrong, in bad faith, then I can play that fuck fuck game with you too. I can walk into a "regulated" store and buy a perfectly functional and accurate 1889 Schmidt–Rubin bolt action cartridge rifle with absolutely no background check no ID -- so *ha ha ha you are incorrect!*.